[nespharym]

Initial Dyno

after putting a total of 3000 miles on the 335i, we dynoed the beast after our trip back from Atlanta....NOPI, you might have seen it in the Toyo Booth

at 4500 ft, and 102 degree temp initial numbers were as follows

HP at wheels was 292.4
Torque at wheels was 308.5

Dyno on 335i after Acitve Autowerke Exhaust

at 4500 ft, and 98 degree temp

HP at wheels was 305.5
Torque at wheels was 310.05

now to add an BOV, and new ECU.....let the fun begin

[bimmerlex]

Wow, those look to be pretty high stock numbers in that conditions. You got a beast out of the box...

[Acuracy]

nice numbers!!! How do u like the AA exhaust? Im thinking about picking it up but havent much reviews or sound clips.

Travis

[nespharym]

I bought the vehicle in July. My installer picked it up from the dealership in PA, and drove it to Atlanta this weekend for NOPI. I just drove it back from Atlanta on Tues and did the initial base dyno. The exhaust was installed yesterday, and the dyno numbers reflect the added horses.....I have yet to truly enjoy the Active Autowerke upgrades....but I will

[leftcoastman]

Corrected or Uncorrected? At high altitudes, corrected numbers overinflate power numbers for turbo cars.

[E90ice]

You can't be making 292 at the wheels stock. It's either the altitude or dyno needs calibration.

[bnj]

Originally Posted by leftcoastman

Corrected or Uncorrected? At high altitudes, corrected numbers overinflate power numbers for turbo cars.

I wouldn't car of the figures weather at altitude or not. There are so many factors that all one pair of dyno figures is good for is measuring the delta, and even in that I tend to calculate the percentual difference rather than absolute hp difference.

The "overinflation" can be read accurately and correctly as how much a respective NA car should dyno at sea level for it to be this strong at the altitude. So even a dyno figure for a turbo car has a valid and correct meaning if one can interpret in the correct way.

[1clean335i]

Was your car in the show at Nopi? I only saw 3 other 335i's at the show. The other 3 were coupes, one guys I know who is AU335 on here. The other one was a space gray coupe which a girl owned and from Florida. The last one was a white coupe in the toyo tire booth. Is that one yours??

[nespharym]

It was the one at the Toyo Tire Booth....we will now take it to the races in Phoenix then to Long Beach for those who want to see the custom Silver CF audio install in person:rocks:

[leftcoastman]

Originally Posted by bnj

I wouldn't car of the figures weather at altitude or not. There are so many factors that all one pair of dyno figures is good for is measuring the delta, and even in that I tend to calculate the percentual difference rather than absolute hp difference.

The "overinflation" can be read accurately and correctly as how much a respective NA car should dyno at sea level for it to be this strong at the altitude. So even a dyno figure for a turbo car has a valid and correct meaning if one can interpret in the correct way.

Delta percentage wise is correct.

However, the inflation figures are assuming it's NA, which means that it loses power at altitude (I believe linearly with loss in air pressure). The turbo spools up more to compensate, so the loss is not nearly as bad. So if you apply the same NA correction factor, I cannot see how it is valid or correct, unless you take the corrected number and convert it back to uncorrected.

In which case, you might as well start with uncorrected.

Simple Math:

N/A Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 200hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 160hp (20% loss)
Corrected dyno: 200hp (correction factor applied)

Turbo Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 300hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 295hp
Corrected dyno: 368.75 hp (same correction factor as NA)

[nespharym]

The purpose for the dyno runs in El paso were to see the gains after the Active Autowerke Performance Group upgrade....we will dyno the whip in Long Beach as well

[musc]

Originally Posted by leftcoastman

Delta percentage wise is correct.

However, the inflation figures are assuming it's NA, which means that it loses power at altitude (I believe linearly with loss in air pressure). The turbo spools up more to compensate, so the loss is not nearly as bad. So if you apply the same NA correction factor, I cannot see how it is valid or correct, unless you take the corrected number and convert it back to uncorrected.

In which case, you might as well start with uncorrected.

Simple Math:

N/A Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 200hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 160hp (20% loss)
Corrected dyno: 200hp (correction factor applied)

Turbo Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 300hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 295hp
Corrected dyno: 368.75 hp (same correction factor as NA)

+1

There were a couple of threads covering this in the past. It seems to be forgotten that the ECU is adding in boost already to compensate for altitude, so standard correction will over inflate the numbers.

It does show a true gain of ~13 hp for the exhaust which is nice.

[bnj]

What I meant by one being able to interpret the corrected figures "correctly" is explained in the following figures (I upgraded the NA to V8 to be able to show the point)

N/A Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 350hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 280hp (20% loss)
Corrected dyno: 350hp (correction factor applied)

Turbo Car:

Sea Level uncorrected dyno: 300hp
Altitude uncorrected dyno: 295hp
Corrected dyno: 368.75 hp (same correction factor as NA)

The above shows that although at sea level, the NA has more power (350 vs 300), at the altitude it has less power. The corrected dyno figure for your turbo car: 368.75hp is the amount of power that the NA car should be rated at (=should have at the sea level) to be as powerful as the turbo car is at that altitude. All I'm saying is that the corrected figure has a clear and correct meaning, the meaning being: what is the horsepower level a NA car should be rated at, to be as powerful as your turbo car where you drive it at your altitude. For example, it comes handy if you live at altitude and you want to compare your tuned turbo car to a let's say new M3

[leftcoastman]

I see your logic but I doubt most people think that way.

They will say "My car dyno'ed at 369hp!" And the guy who reads it will think "damn, my car only dyno'ed at 300".

when are you going to be in long beach?

[bnj]

Originally Posted by leftcoastman

I see your logic but I doubt most people think that way.

They will say "My car dyno'ed at 369hp!" And the guy who reads it will think "damn, my car only dyno'ed at 300".

Sure, couldn't agree more

[OpenFlash]

Yep, at 4500' above sea level, a Dynojet will apply a correction factor of 1.15-1.18. Which is optimistic for a turbo engine that is designed to compensate for high altitude conditions (to a point, at least). I suspect that the raw numbers are overstated by 10-12%. But the % difference between the pre and post exhaust runs is perfectly valid. Just the raw numbers are a bit skewed.

Shiv

[leftcoastman]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yep, at 4500' above sea level, a Dynojet will apply a correction factor of 1.15-1.18. Which is optimistic for a turbo engine that is designed to compensate for high altitude conditions (to a point, at least). I suspect that the raw numbers are overstated by 10-12%. But the % difference between the pre and post exhaust runs is perfectly valid. Just the raw numbers are a bit skewed.

Shiv

Thanks Eddie the Echo.

Now where's my V2?

[Omar@ActiveAutowerke]

Happy you like the exhaust. Enjoy!!

[Rez90]

anyone have a sound clip with this exhaust?

[nespharym]

Originally Posted by that guy nico

when are you going to be in long beach?

For my car that is....going to leave it with some sponsors prior to SEMA

[BMW_TT]

Originally Posted by Rez90

anyone have a sound clip with this exhaust?

second that